I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches. They deny it is true and then complain when it isn't in evidence.

check your code of canon law (or as it is offiically Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO)), there is no such thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the Vatican's ecclesiastical community.http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

Your "facts" fall flat yet again.

No. They do not fall flat as much as they have not been tried, yet.

This very reality is what the bilateral dialogue is trying to forge without totally jettisoning the teachings of papal primacy and infallibility.

not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.

Excellent advice for both Catholics and Orthodox

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.

I am opposing reality.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.

I oppose what Eastern Orthodoxy has really become.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.

I oppose what Eastern Orthodoxy has really become.

The repository of Truth. Oppose that as much as you want. It is preposterous that the Roman church, in trying to create facts to substantiate its inventions get texts from the Greeks, missinterpret them systematically and then say the Greeks didn't know what they were saying in first place.

The *whole* history of "infallible" dogmas is based on Roman interpretations of texts poetic in nature outside their proper context: the reading of the Catholic church in favor of a catapapic interpretation. Notice that this is not a calling of names, but a description.

Filioque: the whole Church (cata holos) understood and understands that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. That is a literal quote from Jesus' mouth. Everybody (cata holos) understood and understand that Jesus sends the Spirit to the world. Everybody (even the popes! - cata holos) agreed that the Creed should be kept that way and the wordly sending of the Spirit explained in catechism. In fact "together glorified with the Father and the Son" already accounts for the special relation of the Spirit with the two other Persons at the same time. There comes a Frank emperor and ignorantly (or ill-intended) says that the inovation had been "dropped" and impose it on the gullible West which, not only accepts it but is even unable to humbly correct the historical blooper;

Authority of the Primate: Only God is infallible and He teaches through whatever mean, wherever He wants (cata holic teaching). The primate defends the Orthodox Faith and the world praises him for it. Then people misinterpret that as if orthodoxy of faith came from his authority (catapapic teaching) instead through the whole (cata holic) from the one only Infallible.

Honor of the Virgin Mary: She is called Immaculate in very specific poetic texts in the very specific theology of the Catholic church. People who didn't know Greek translate it with different degrees of quality into Latin, and instead of humbly asking those who were teaching them the meaning of such lofty expressions, simply proudly try to guess and imagine. Then they come up with a heretical teaching, and once again, like with the claim that the Greeks had "dropped" the Filioque, they delludedly claim that their guess had always existed and that the whole community (cata holic church) that *taught* them the use of the title "dropped" that "first" meaning. Romans in face of the Greek Church are like children who invent invisible friends and then blame their parents for having stopped talking with these invisible friends.

Let's put the record straight:

There are only two peoples that we see in the Gospel that convert to Christianity: part of the Jews and Greeks. Romans are there but in NT we don't still have any significant number in conversions. Greeks are still Orthodox this day, their language is a direct descedent of the language of the Gospel and the Greeks enjoyed a continuity of education and culture that the West couldn't dream of. The worst days of Byzantine education would be examples of schooling to many societies even today. They *know* what they meant and they know what they mean. When confronted by Greek texts ask the Greeks what they mean. The whole "recovery" of texts and meanings is something for those who either lost or never had access to the original texts. The Greeks never lost them and had access from the very Apostolic times. Again, they *know* what those texts mean and the non-Greeks should just be humble, silent and learn.

Romans were once brilliant students of the Greek. In philosophy and in theology they reduced these activities to the application on the governance of society and the state, moving from a confederation of free cities/jurisdictions to the imperial monarchy of a dictator. As pagans they conquered their teachers militarily. As Christians, they tried to do the same spiritually and failed, thanks God.

Their city fell and their area of the world went through an age of decadence that led them to, adding insult to injury, crown a ex-federate barbarian king who imposed his own people broken theology on the papacy. The first popes resisted, but the later ones couldn't. That was the second and most terrible fall of Rome. Talk about cesaropapism. Charlesmagne managed not only to decide church matters but to change the entire theology of the Romans. Not even in the worst days of imperial interference in Byzantium an emperor managed to change the theology of the Church so deeply and for so long as Charlesmagne did with the Roman church both by the filioque and by allowing/making the pope to crown him. Everytime a Roman shouts cesaropapism sounds like a neurotic person who projects his/her own psychological pains onto the passerbies. Roman theology is the apix and most outstanding success of cesaropapism in history.

This is all to say this: cultivate your heresies as you may, but do not slander those who mercifully tried to educate you for your own failings in understanding.

If you mistrust the Holy Spirit so much as to look for "exclusive channels", popes, bibles instead of looking for the Spirit of Truth according to the whole (cata holic), that's your problem. If you want to further your cognitive dissonance by believing "according to ex cathedra statements of the Pope" and yet calling yourselves those who believe "according to the whole" than that's your psychologist problem. But do not put your blasphemies in the mouth of the Fathers, for they knew well the limit between dogma and theolegumen and spoke accordingly about each.

« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 05:45:01 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

Growth in Orthodoxy in Russia is limited to only a few parts of the country. As impressive as the growth may be in a few places, elsewhere the Church is shrinking or has pulled out entirely. In the areas I do fieldwork, the Orthodox have decided not to maintain priests or rebuild churches in spite of demand, because the ROC in the area now considers itself only a church for ethnic Russians and not despised non-Russian-speaking minorities, so the Lutheran Church has come in to minister. There has been no return to the pre-Communist flourishing of the Church, when whole peoples were being brought to Christ. Rather, there has been a change of priorities that will leave most of the country abandoned.

I see that Mary has asked me to address the above but I cannot. It seems to be something from CRCulver's personal experiences in Russia and I am not familiar with them. I have not seen evidence of what he or she says from other sources. Maybe it would help if some sources are provided?

One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West, and yet, they currently reject that as well.

That's an interesting theory you have.

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.

I am opposing reality.

LOL. That you are.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

I would like to add that I don't agree with the concept that EOs are theologically stagnant. That is one point were Hahn and I diverge. I think that theological innovation is a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy. One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West, and yet, they currently reject that as well.

Well, in an odd way you refute Hahn's accusation that our theology is stagnant. As you point out, it is not stagnant at all. Once we used to be burdened with some undeveloped erroneous beliefs. But now we have developed our doctrine and rectified them. Hey, look at us! We got evolving theology just like the Catholics!! Who's going to tell Scott Hahn that he needs to revise his book?

Just looking at Hahn's accusation against Orthodoxy.... it is codswallop.

What does it mean for theology to be "stagnant"?

What does he want us to do with our theology? Update it every century? Keep the doctrine of the Trinity evolving by introducing Mary as sharing a Hypostatic Union with the Holy Spirit?

Anyway, what are your own latest theological changes? How do you rebutt Hahn's accusation of stagnation?

Well, I guess I don't spend much time trying to rebut it. But I do question why it's fine for like Dr. Hahn, and other “ecumenical-minded” Catholics, to makes statements like those about the Orthodox, when a traditional Catholic who said the same things would be decried as un-ecumenical and intolerant. In other words, why is there a double-standard?

On a side note, I was just thinking about "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" (1994). As I understand it, the main idea was a dialogue situation that would be a lot more conservative than e.g. the World Council of Churches. I wonder if there will ever be a "Traditional Catholics and Orthodox Together". It could exclude Dr. Hahn and Fr. Taft since they aren't traditional Catholics.

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion. However there won't be the kind of aggressive rejection of either papal infallibility or primacy that you and others call for either.

That is what will have to be mutually considered and decided upon in advance of any move toward resumption of communion.

It has been stated categorically by the Vatican Organization that there will NEVER be another Unia.

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion. However there won't be the kind of aggressive rejection of either papal infallibility or primacy that you and others call for either.

That is what will have to be mutually considered and decided upon in advance of any move toward resumption of communion.

It has been stated categorically by the Vatican Organization that there will NEVER be another Unia.

I think that's a pretty good indicator.

The Vatican believes in development in doctrine, and there is no such guarentee it won't develop back to Florence.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion. However there won't be the kind of aggressive rejection of either papal infallibility or primacy that you and others call for either.

That is what will have to be mutually considered and decided upon in advance of any move toward resumption of communion.

It has been stated categorically by the Vatican Organization that there will NEVER be another Unia.

I think that's a pretty good indicator.

Here are the words of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) who is the doyen of Russian theologians and always heads our delegations to Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. I fear that you will assess it as providing the Archbishop of Rome with no more than a platitude.

Metropolitan Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of theUniversal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of theuniversal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of theLocal Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Romeoccupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in theOrthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who untilthe schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates ofthe Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them hasjurisdiction over any other."

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion. However there won't be the kind of aggressive rejection of either papal infallibility or primacy that you and others call for either.

That is what will have to be mutually considered and decided upon in advance of any move toward resumption of communion.

It has been stated categorically by the Vatican Organization that there will NEVER be another Unia.

I think that's a pretty good indicator.

The Vatican believes in development in doctrine, and there is no such guarentee it won't develop back to Florence.

What does "develop back to Florence" mean? And is it the same as saying "revert back to Florence"?

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion. However there won't be the kind of aggressive rejection of either papal infallibility or primacy that you and others call for either.

That is what will have to be mutually considered and decided upon in advance of any move toward resumption of communion.

It has been stated categorically by the Vatican Organization that there will NEVER be another Unia.

I think that's a pretty good indicator.

The Vatican believes in development in doctrine, and there is no such guarentee it won't develop back to Florence.

What does "develop back to Florence" mean? And is it the same as saying "revert back to Florence"?

It would, if I believed the Vatican ever left Florence.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Mary, I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't. You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility. You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.

Mary, I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't. You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility. You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

Alright, since you've settled that, which represented the mind of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Celestine of Rome? Or was it St. John of Antioch?

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above, "it" means the cards which the Pope has not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above, "it" means the cards which the Pope hads not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

Thanks. However, I'm not sure that's what she meant by "it". After all, she said "It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion."

Mary, I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't. You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility. You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

Alright, since you've settled that, which represented the mind of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Celestine of Rome? Or was it St. John of Antioch?

It is not I who will settle it. It will be the Church and I'll bet dollars to bootstraps that the Church will back Saint Justin and not the well groomed and deodorised delegates at Theological Commissions.

Seriously..... while you can pretty much count on your Catholic faithful accepting what is decided by the Vatican, you certainly cannot count on that with our people.

An example....... when the Greek Archbishop Stylianos of Sydney was quite active in ecumenical affairs and headed a delegation to Rome his flock came to believe that he had betrayed Orthodoxy in some way (I can't remember details.)

The first Sunday he was back in Sydney his people actually stoned him on the steps of his cathedral! You see the power of the people, the power of grassroots Orthodoxy.

In point of fact they were quite mistaken and the poor Archbishop had not betrayed Orthodoxy at all!

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above, "it" means the cards which the Pope hads not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

Thanks. However, I'm not sure that's what she meant by "it". After all, she said "It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion."

Because in this context she is assuming that the cards involve papal primacy, and she's quite right.

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above, "it" means the cards which the Pope has not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

Speak for yourself please.

"It" from my point of view is the idea that the papal Church will resume communion with Patriarchial Churches that are as independent then as they are now...in terms of taking care of their own traditional Churches in their own traditional ways.

Mary, I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't. You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility. You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

Alright, since you've settled that, which represented the mind of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Celestine of Rome? Or was it St. John of Antioch?

It is not I who will settle it. It will be the Church and I'll bet dollars to bootstraps that the Church will back Saint Justin and not the well groomed and deodorised delegates at Theological Commissions.

Alright, but you can see my point anyways, right? Namely, it wasn't so simple back then that you could just say "the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through so-and-so" and that's all there is to it. Rather some people felt that Pat. Cyril best represented the mind of the Church, others thought Pope Celestine did, still others thought Pat. John did, etc.

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above, "it" means the cards which the Pope has not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above, "it" means the cards which the Pope has not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

Speak for yourself please.

"It" from my point of view is the idea that the papal Church will resume communion with Patriarchial Churches that are as independent then as they are now...in terms of taking care of their own traditional Churches in their own traditional ways.

No Unia!!

You see the attached condition..."in terms of taking care of their own traditional Churches in their own traditional ways." Vatican-speak!!

No mention whether the Churches will enjoy the same conditions as they enjoy now in their relationships with one another. No mention that the Church of Rome may be outvoted at Ecumenical Councils and that the decisions of the Churches will not require approval from Rome. No mention that the Churches may depose the Archbishop of Rome if necessary.

Mary, I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't. You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility. You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

Alright, since you've settled that, which represented the mind of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Celestine of Rome? Or was it St. John of Antioch?

It is not I who will settle it. It will be the Church and I'll bet dollars to bootstraps that the Church will back Saint Justin and not the well groomed and deodorised delegates at Theological Commissions.

Seriously..... while you can pretty much count on your Catholic faithful accepting what is decided by the Vatican, you certainly cannot count on that with our people.

An example....... when the Greek Archbishop Stylianos of Sydney was quite active in ecumenical affairs and headed a delegation to Rome his flock came to believe that he had betrayed Orthodoxy in some way (I can't remember details.)

The first Sunday he was back in Sydney his people actually stoned him on the steps of his cathedral! You see the power of the people, the power of grassroots Orthodoxy.

In point of fact they were quite mistaken and the poor Archbishop had not betrayed Orthodoxy at all!

Only an Irishman would find this to be something to brag about and encourage others to emulate.

It's how Florence was over turned.

It's how the Unia was met.

But if I were to point that out, I'd be booed off the stage by you.

Yet here you brag on it.

Go for it.

elijahmaria, the "only an Irishman..." comment crosses the ad hominem line. You are hereby put on warned status for 7 days. Please refrain from even toeing such a line in the future. If you think this is in error, please appeal to Fr. George or FrChris. -Schultz.

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.

Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.

Is this true? Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this. He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria."

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above, "it" means the cards which the Pope has not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

Speak for yourself please.

"It" from my point of view is the idea that the papal Church will resume communion with Patriarchial Churches that are as independent then as they are now...in terms of taking care of their own traditional Churches in their own traditional ways.

No Unia!!

You see the attached condition..."in terms of taking care of their own traditional Churches in their own traditional ways." Vatican-speak!!

No mention whether the Churches will enjoy the same conditions as they enjoy now in their relationships with one another. No mention that the Church of Rome may be outvoted at Ecumenical Councils and that the decisions of the Churches will not require approval from Rome. No mention that the Churches may depose the Archbishop of Rome if necessary.

Vatican-speak!!

Get off it.

The details are what your well groomed and perfumed hierarchs are going to decide in concert with the Catholic Church.

You have such disdain for Orthodox pro-unionists...enough to stone them at the gate from the looks of your most recent posts.

I find that very indicative...and you say that Orthodoxy has to be afraid of the Catholic Church?....More like it should be afraid for their lives from their own.

Father Ambrose said:

Quote

It is not I who will settle it. It will be the Church and I'll bet dollars to bootstraps that the Church will back Saint Justin and not the well groomed and deodorised delegates at Theological Commissions.

Seriously..... while you can pretty much count on your Catholic faithful accepting what is decided by the Vatican, you certainly cannot count on that with our people.

An example....... when the Greek Archbishop Stylianos of Sydney was quite active in ecumenical affairs and headed a delegation to Rome his flock came to believe that he had betrayed Orthodoxy in some way (I can't remember details.)

The first Sunday he was back in Sydney his people actually stoned him on the steps of his cathedral! You see the power of the people, the power of grassroots Orthodoxy.

In point of fact they were quite mistaken and the poor Archbishop had not betrayed Orthodoxy at all!

I don't see power here or historically.

But I do see the violence. I am surprised you brag about it. Ordinarily you try to hide it and point at the violence of the west.

Nice try at introducing red herrings! Sorry, not biting. Although if you want to talk about violence how about the battles Pope Pius IX fought against Italy, and he killed so many young Italian men that he made himself a prisoner in the Vatican protected by his troops to avoid being killed by the fathers and brothers of the dead Italian soldiers. Shall we talk about how he tried to involve France and Spain in his violence against Italy but they were horrified and refused to bend to his will.---

You must be aware though of the fact that after union the Archbishop of Rome will no longer be superior to Ecumenical Councils but subject to them. Nor will he be superior to the other bishops but one of their equals.

Is acceptance of these conditions part of the secret cards which Benedict XVI has not yet revealed? Will he accept the ancient canonical order of the Church or will he prefer to remain in isolation?

Nice try at introducing red herrings! Sorry, not biting. Although if you want to talk about violence how about the battles Pope Pius IX fought against Italy, and he killed so many young Italian men that he made himself a prisoner in the Vatican protected by his troops to avoid being killed by the fathers and brothers of the dead Italian soldiers. Shall we talk about how he tried to involve France and Spain in his violence against Italy but they were horrified and refused to bend to his will.---

You must be aware though of the fact that after union the Archbishop of Rome will no longer be superior to Ecumenical Councils but subject to them. Nor will he be superior to the other bishops but one of their equals.

Is acceptance of these conditions part of the secret cards which Benedict XVI has not yet revealed? Will he accept the ancient canonical order of the Church or will he prefer to remain in isolation?

I expect that Orthodoxy will have to admit to primatial power rather than trying to hide it, as you try also to hide the historical violence displayed by Orthodox people. Poor li'l ole us...does not play well in the real world.

The details are what your well groomed and perfumed hierarchs are going to decide in concert with the Catholic Church.

Has nothing been learnt from the various union Councils which have all shipwrecked?

Have we not understood that the bishops may discuss and propose and that is quite right, it is part pf their holy work. But it will be the fullness of the Church which will bring down the final judgement, either agreeing with the bishops or disagreeing. And if it is the latter no union will succeed.

I have nothing to add to this thread other than a "Thank you" to Fabio Leite for posting the piece about revolutionary mentality. The kind of mindset described is present, not only in ecumenism, but basically everywhere.

You must be aware though of the fact that after union the Archbishop of Rome will no longer be superior to Ecumenical Councils but subject to them. Nor will he be superior to the other bishops but one of their equals.

When I read this, my first thought was "Why? That wasn't the case after the Union of Brest." But then I saw that you anticipated that question:

Nice try at introducing red herrings! Sorry, not biting. Although if you want to talk about violence how about the battles Pope Pius IX fought against Italy, and he killed so many young Italian men that he made himself a prisoner in the Vatican protected by his troops to avoid being killed by the fathers and brothers of the dead Italian soldiers. Shall we talk about how he tried to involve France and Spain in his violence against Italy but they were horrified and refused to bend to his will.

In that message and in several others I have spoken of primacy at a national level

"Yes, we are discussing it at ALL levels (thanks to the insistence of Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper) and as you know the Orthodox Russians are vehemently denying it exists at the global level. It exists only at the level for which the canons were formulated - regional, provincial and national. Nothing higher.

"Like it or not but Orthodoxy has no mechanism capable of adding a global level. It could call an Ecumenical Council to consider the matter but after 2000 years of tradition and canon law it is highly unlikely that the Council would innovate about this and add a global level and formulate canons for its regulation. Apart from the horror of a break with tradition the Church would be facing an even greater horror - widespread schism among the faithful who would refuse to accept the creation of a global primacy."

Quote

I want to see a resumption of communion on equal footing.

You want to see subservience or nothing.

We wish to see the canonical order of the Church restored in the West before we unite. That means the deconstruction of the doctrine of papal supremacy which brings every member of the Church into subservience.

Canon 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Canon 333.3 No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

In that message and in several others I have spoken of primacy at a national level

"Yes, we are discussing it at ALL levels (thanks to the insistence of Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper) and as you know the Orthodox Russians are vehemently denying it exists at the global level. It exists only at the level for which the canons were formulated - regional, provincial and national. Nothing higher.

"Like it or not but Orthodoxy has no mechanism capable of adding a global level. It could call an Ecumenical Council to consider the matter but after 2000 years of tradition and canon law it is highly unlikely that the Council would innovate about this and add a global level and formulate canons for its regulation. Apart from the horror of a break with tradition the Church would be facing an even greater horror - widespread schism among the faithful who would refuse to accept the creation of a global primacy."

Quote

I want to see a resumption of communion on equal footing.

You want to see subservience or nothing.

We wish to see the canonical order of the Church restored in the West before we unite. That means the deconstruction of papal supremacy brings every member of the Church into subservience.

Canon 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Canon 333.3 No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

All Canon 333.3 tells you is that if you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.

Orthodoxy has been working on that principle for 2000 years and apparently praxis makes perfect since you brag about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven...well...ok then!!

Nice try at introducing red herrings! Sorry, not biting. Although if you want to talk about violence how about the battles Pope Pius IX fought against Italy, and he killed so many young Italian men that he made himself a prisoner in the Vatican protected by his troops to avoid being killed by the fathers and brothers of the dead Italian soldiers. Shall we talk about how he tried to involve France and Spain in his violence against Italy but they were horrified and refused to bend to his will.

But you won't hear me boasting about those events.

The notion that I was bragging about what took place in Sydney is something you have picked up from Mary.

I introduced it to demonstrate that our faithful are not as passive as yours and that they have been taught to see themselves as meaningful and pro-active guardians of the faith. Sandro Magister speaks of this difference in an article of his. A Roman Cathoic journalist, he puts it well, not fully accurately, but well enough.

In that message and in several others I have spoken of primacy at a national level

"Yes, we are discussing it at ALL levels (thanks to the insistence of Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper) and as you know the Orthodox Russians are vehemently denying it exists at the global level. It exists only at the level for which the canons were formulated - regional, provincial and national. Nothing higher.

"Like it or not but Orthodoxy has no mechanism capable of adding a global level. It could call an Ecumenical Council to consider the matter but after 2000 years of tradition and canon law it is highly unlikely that the Council would innovate about this and add a global level and formulate canons for its regulation. Apart from the horror of a break with tradition the Church would be facing an even greater horror - widespread schism among the faithful who would refuse to accept the creation of a global primacy."

Quote

I want to see a resumption of communion on equal footing.

You want to see subservience or nothing.

We wish to see the canonical order of the Church restored in the West before we unite. That means the deconstruction of papal supremacy brings every member of the Church into subservience.

Canon 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Canon 333.3 No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

All Canon 333.3 tells you is that if you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.

Orthodoxy has been working on that principle for 2000 years and apparently praxis makes perfect since you brag about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven...well...ok then!!

You are showing an extraordinary flair for getting things wrong today. If you were able to remember my messages accurately what I have in fact said is that our faith is not limited to the Seven Holy Councils, but it also draws on other aspects of Tradition - Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, our liturgy and hymnody, our iconography.

If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace. If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."

Again I point out how surprised I am to encouter this and other attitudes from someone who is a member of an Eastern Catholic Church.

If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace. If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."

This "flowing along without major challenge" has resulted in a variety of intra-Orthodox teachings on any number of issues, with no recourse to resolve deviance at all, save for an ecumenical council.

Such deviance is acceptable in Orthodoxy but is then derided and mocked when it appears in the long history of the Catholic Church.

You're all a muddle Father...an Irishman in King Constantine's Court....

Nice try at introducing red herrings! Sorry, not biting. Although if you want to talk about violence how about the battles Pope Pius IX fought against Italy, and he killed so many young Italian men that he made himself a prisoner in the Vatican protected by his troops to avoid being killed by the fathers and brothers of the dead Italian soldiers. Shall we talk about how he tried to involve France and Spain in his violence against Italy but they were horrified and refused to bend to his will.

But you won't hear me boasting about those events.

The notion that I was bragging about what took place in Sydney is something you have picked up from Mary.

Actually, as soon as I read post #67, I thought that the tone of it was troubling.

I introduced it to demonstrate that our faithful are not as passive as yours and that they have been taught to see themselves as meaningful and pro-active guardians of the faith. Sandro Magister speaks of this difference in an article of his. A Roman Cathoic journalist, he puts it well, not fully accurately, but well enough.

If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace. If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."

This "flowing along without major challenge" has resulted in a variety of intra-Orthodox teachings on any number of issues, with no recourse to resolve deviance at all, save for an ecumenical council.

Such deviance is acceptable in Orthodoxy

So we are presented with another "Dixit Maria." Allegations of this and accusations of that but not a shred of substantiation nor specifics. The tactic is way old!